Hold LEO factions to the same risk / reward Non-RP standards that criminals are held to.

[Copperhorse]

3 hours ago, Xoza said:

Greetings,

Rules are tailored and held equally to all players unbiased of alignment or activity, but often translated or with added descriptions to better assist with understand based on common activities on the server.

Is there a suggestion? in this thread that would state a 'rule' or descriptive statement, written and specific that would be fitting for a section and for all players, whether, citizen, law or criminal?

If not, this looks more like a discussion/debate and should be moved out of suggestions and to the discussion boards.

There has and always will be friction between sides, whether it be realism, power or other. I'm sure the staff team is aware of these concerns and it's always great to hear everyone side without it getting heated. From what has been witnessed, modifications on both sides happen often in aim to accommodate these concerns and improve the quality of RP for everyone.

Thanks.

The problem is that there are tailor made rules (specifically in this case risk / reward) designed to solely impact criminal roleplay. The point of this thread is to make that tailor made rule community wide instead of only enforced upon by the staff team when a criminal breaks the risk/reward rule.

Your statement that the rules are tailored and held equally to all players unbiased of alignment or activity is categorically false. If what you said was true I wouldn't have a thread claiming to the contrary with 60-70+ people agreeing to the post.

My suggestion is pretty clear. It's to make this specific rule server wide instead of criminal specific as it is currently being enforced by the staff team.

[Xoza]

2 hours ago, Copperhorse said:

My suggestion is pretty clear. It's to make this specific rule server wide instead of criminal specific as it is currently being enforced by the staff team.

I am not arguing one side or the other, as this is a suggestion forum, so let's get to the suggestion... what exactly are you suggesting when it comes to risk/reward?

Everyone is held to all rules equally. It may be tailored more to criminal activities and abuse prevention, because that's where the activity exists, but that doesn't mean no one is held to that standard, whether they involve themselves in these activities or not.

Let's ignore that the rule falls under. "Player Theft, Prison Breakout, and Kidnapping" and say it gets put under "NonRP". How would you reword the below, to be more in line of what you are suggesting, how would you expand upon it?

• "Robberies should be conducted in a realistic manner with reasonable in-character motive using secluded areas. Players should not conduct minor robberies in situations with high risk. Desert or forest areas are considered secluded but witnesses should still be considered."

[Marlon]

6 hours ago, Xoza said:

I am not arguing one side or the other, as this is a suggestion forum, so let's get to the suggestion... what exactly are you suggesting when it comes to risk/reward?

Everyone is held to all rules equally. It may be tailored more to criminal activities and abuse prevention, because that's where the activity exists, but that doesn't mean no one is held to that standard, whether they involve themselves in these activities or not.

Let's ignore that the rule falls under. "Player Theft, Prison Breakout, and Kidnapping" and say it gets put under "NonRP". How would you reword the below, to be more in line of what you are suggesting, how would you expand upon it?

• "Robberies should be conducted in a realistic manner with reasonable in-character motive using secluded areas. Players should not conduct minor robberies in situations with high risk. Desert or forest areas are considered secluded but witnesses should still be considered."

In an example, Shadow, let's say you conduct a 10-55 on a Rapid GT on Pillbox Avenue, and you get their license and everything. Then, you notice that they had an unpaid ticket overdue so, a failure to pay fine. You tell them to exit the vehicle to arrest them but, they end up felony evading leaving the scene, and you are now chasing them. Let's say this chase has been going on for 20-25 minutes, and you say this chase is taking way too long, and you get the idea of taking out a Micro SMG and giving vehicle demands to the person, "Stop the vehicle or FORCE will be used." The reason for this demand was because it was because the chase was taking too long. You knew exactly who the person was, you did not know what the person had in the vehicle, and you decided to spray a micro at the criminal party. Now let's say you gave these demands on the highway. The highway is RPly known to have lots of civilians on it so, shooting a Micro SMG would be very dangerous and risk many lives. Understanding the motive is just arresting the person but putting other lives in danger. The NONRP would be the cops shooting at the person, putting other lives at risk along with yours because the shooting at the criminal's car could end up backfiring on you.

This can also coincide with "High-Risk Low Reward" because you didn't know what they had on them, but you knew the risks of hurting others on the highway could've killed them. Some LEO don't think about these rules, and they do things that don't make sense. Another that doesn't make sense is that LEO's can give demands from a vehicle and shoot at the criminal party. But, if a criminal did that to another criminal, it's not allowed; it would be considered DM and Non-RP.

Let's say this same situation occurs with the traffic stop, but they got out aimed a heavy weapon or a pistol at you then, got back in your vehicle, the situation changes completely. The risk can be high; the reward would be worth it, though. You are catching someone that gave you demands; you know the weapon they have is illegal or was used illegally. This is where let's say on the highway would make sense to shoot them because they don't know how to handle the weaponry they are carrying and what they did was very illegal. A micro spraying at the criminal party on the highway would make sense. The risk would still be pretty high but, the reward you're getting out of it is getting these weapons off the street as much as possible and stopping it from injuring others on the streets of Los Santos. 

I'm not biased towards the criminal party or the LEO party. I feel that these are rules that need to be spoken about to both parties. No one should go into /b instantly angrily just because of that one reason for the outcome. They should continue the RP and not stall it due to /b. I'm suggesting changing the rules of shooting from vehicles for LEOs and criminals, making sure people think about the RP situation before attempting to be angry when they know they are in the wrong. In my honest opinion, if anyone has a good reason to shoot at the party they are chasing with seeing Heavy Weaponry on person and something illegal that has occurred then, demands given from a vehicle should be allowed. This is my suggestion for "High-Risk Low Reward" towards LEO factions. Like Clank said "Lighten up my friend! 

16 hours ago, ClankH said:

I am not memeing just trying to lighten the mood since this is a SUGGESTION board. Defeats the purpose of people going back and forth arguing even though nobody is going to change their mind as you can clearly see. Went from suggestions to baseless back and forth arguments. Perhaps when people realize that it takes both sides to make a change then all the ignorance will change!

Lighten up my friend! We're playing a video game to have fun!

 

 

We're playing a video game to have fun!" Just have fun with it remember this isn't real life there are many more important things then, this suggestion.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Marlon

[Cyrus Raven]

4 hours ago, Marlon said:

In an example, Shadow, let's say you conduct a 10-55 on a Rapid GT on Pillbox Avenue, and you get their license and everything. Then, you notice that they had an unpaid ticket overdue so, a failure to pay fine. You tell them to exit the vehicle to arrest them but, they end up felony evading leaving the scene, and you are now chasing them. Let's say this chase has been going on for 20-25 minutes, and you say this chase is taking way too long, and you get the idea of taking out a Micro SMG and giving vehicle demands to the person, "Stop the vehicle or FORCE will be used." The reason for this demand was because it was because the chase was taking too long. You knew exactly who the person was, you did not know what the person had in the vehicle, and you decided to spray a micro at the criminal party. Now let's say you gave these demands on the highway. The highway is RPly known to have lots of civilians on it so, shooting a Micro SMG would be very dangerous and risk many lives. Understanding the motive is just arresting the person but putting other lives in danger. The NONRP would be the cops shooting at the person, putting other lives at risk along with yours because the shooting at the criminal's car could end up backfiring on you.

This can also coincide with "High-Risk Low Reward" because you didn't know what they had on them, but you knew the risks of hurting others on the highway could've killed them. Some LEO don't think about these rules, and they do things that don't make sense. Another that doesn't make sense is that LEO's can give demands from a vehicle and shoot at the criminal party. But, if a criminal did that to another criminal, it's not allowed; it would be considered DM and Non-RP.

Let's say this same situation occurs with the traffic stop, but they got out aimed a heavy weapon or a pistol at you then, got back in your vehicle, the situation changes completely. The risk can be high; the reward would be worth it, though. You are catching someone that gave you demands; you know the weapon they have is illegal or was used illegally. This is where let's say on the highway would make sense to shoot them because they don't know how to handle the weaponry they are carrying and what they did was very illegal. A micro spraying at the criminal party on the highway would make sense. The risk would still be pretty high but, the reward you're getting out of it is getting these weapons off the street as much as possible and stopping it from injuring others on the streets of Los Santos. 

I'm not biased towards the criminal party or the LEO party. I feel that these are rules that need to be spoken about to both parties. No one should go into /b instantly angrily just because of that one reason for the outcome. They should continue the RP and not stall it due to /b. I'm suggesting changing the rules of shooting from vehicles for LEOs and criminals, making sure people think about the RP situation before attempting to be angry when they know they are in the wrong. In my honest opinion, if anyone has a good reason to shoot at the party they are chasing with seeing Heavy Weaponry on person and something illegal that has occurred then, demands given from a vehicle should be allowed. This is my suggestion for "High-Risk Low Reward" towards LEO factions. Like Clank said "Lighten up my friend! 

We're playing a video game to have fun!" Just have fun with it remember this isn't real life there are many more important things then, this suggestion.

Even in your initial scenario shooting is viable. Your initial premise that shooting only begins because ''it's taking too long'' isn't true or at the very least it is a very bad representation of the majority of cases.

I will pose a scenario to you in which I believe if the vehicle is shot that would be (in my opinion) Non-RP.

A 10-55 occurs where someone is stopped for speeding, for whatever reason they decide to evade, they do this without constantly going on the wrong side of the road, on the sidewalk, past busy intersections at high-speeds (think bank road/legion square/pier) and generally not endangering the public, but still using the full potential of the vehicle. If this chase lasted a long-time where the vehicle is still sticking to obscure unpopulated roads, off-road, highways or generally not showing extreme neglect for other's lives then I think the decision to shoot tires would be unjustified. Again, this is assuming that the evading vehicle really hasn't done anything to justify getting shot. 

I don't think in the case above the vehicle should be shot, pursuit should continue, roadblocks should be set if possible and whatever appropriate measures taken. (Air support, specialized units, etc...)  

However, there can and is situations where use of lethal force is absolutely justified and in my opinion it happens to be one of the most common types of pursuits, especially involving known criminals/gangs.

A 10-55 occurs where a vehicle is stopped for speeding, for whatever reason they decide to evade, they do this by constantly taking advantage of the wrong side of the road, speeding at max speed with no regard whatsoever for the public and their safety and they make no effort to slow down when passing populated areas (whether that is by cars or pedestrians). They eventually head to the highway and once again are seen changing lanes on the wrong side of the road and continue to generally show no regard for other commuter's lives. In other words, felony public endangerment.

It is my opinion that in this latter example PD should absolutely be able to make the decision to open fire on these vehicles, this doesn't automatically mean we won't try other techniques first or that we are doing it because it is ''taking too long''. The decision is made given the actions the evading car took, not our actions. To address the shooting on highway clause, PD has a special set of circumstances because the high-way in Los Santos and other non-urbanized areas is the only areas that would have less vehicles, compared to the packed nature of downtown LS. If criminals that are actively evading show negligent behaviour in there driving, putting people's lives at risk then a decision from a utilitarian point of view must be made. Do we continue to allow this behaviour that can lead to serious bodily injury/death of both the occupants and other civilians or do we attempt to stop the vehicle, even if it involves shooting on a highway (keeping in mind to do this you have to be RP'ly trained and certified for this type of manoeuvre). To me the decision seems obvious. 

The difference, which I think is the point of this thread, is that PD aren't criminals, as such the decisions we make aren't because of a rivalry with a gang or for some sort of personal gain, which is where the majority of player theft rules are crafted from. A criminal who decides to engage in a shootout over some rivalry on the public highway is not acting realistically given the location, the risk they are taking by engaging in conflict in a busy area vs the reward they receive. Meanwhile, the reward vs risk PD gets when deciding to shoot should absolutely be judged as being RP'ly ok or Non-RP. However, given the intent behind their actions and why they choose to take action can not be compared at all to the reasoning for criminals doing the same thing since these are two very different groups with very different motivations and powers, I believe this distinction is where the nuance and line are drawn.

Having said all of this, I am for more  PD accountability. If you do get shot and you don't think it was warranted given your actions then you should be able to report for non-RP, I just hope it doesn't turn into a report war, which is what we see with the player robbery rules.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Cyrus Raven

[retronub]

@Cyrus Raven

Curious on your opinion of this: https://streamable.com/n4ffne

Another situation where the wooden barriers are used almost as a roadblock and completely stalled a car going 240. I have no issue with them being used personally as long as they are used in a way where there is some way the evader can get past them, but in this example you can see 2 layers of wooden barriers. Even if the driver did manage to break through the first layer of barriers with some stroke of luck (which I don't think he did), the impact force of the first layer would cause him to stall on the second layer, and basically gives him no chance of escaping. The second layer was completely unnecessary too, with no gaps being left with the 3 barriers at the front.

At least in Jay's video you could argue that it was one layer of barriers, and he could get through with "GTA physics", but I'm pretty sure the driver in this scenario literally had 0 chance of getting through at all. It's just blatant PG/Non-RP in my opinion. I would understand this to just be a mistake if the SD officer was of a low rank with little RP experience, but based on the fact that he has a carbine, I assume he is a high ranking deputy. I really doubt he will face any punishment at all based on how I see PD/SD treated compared to criminals regarding to FCs.

Also I want to know your opinions about how it's non rp for a single cruiser to have the storage capacity for 5 wooden barriers. Surely the boot cannot fit that many. I know you're going to make the argument about how its possible for a criminal to store an AK or something in a bike, which is fair enough, but I'm just genuinely curious what your opinions are on this.

Eager to hear your response

Edited November 4, 2020 by retronub

[Cyrus Raven]

19 hours ago, retronub said:

@Cyrus Raven

Curious on your opinion of this: https://streamable.com/n4ffne

Another situation where the wooden barriers are used almost as a roadblock and completely stalled a car going 240. I have no issue with them being used personally as long as they are used in a way where there is some way the evader can get past them, but in this example you can see 2 layers of wooden barriers. Even if the driver did manage to break through the first layer of barriers with some stroke of luck (which I don't think he did), the impact force of the first layer would cause him to stall on the second layer, and basically gives him no chance of escaping. The second layer was completely unnecessary too, with no gaps being left with the 3 barriers at the front.

At least in Jay's video you could argue that it was one layer of barriers, and he could get through with "GTA physics", but I'm pretty sure the driver in this scenario literally had 0 chance of getting through at all. It's just blatant PG/Non-RP in my opinion. I would understand this to just be a mistake if the SD officer was of a low rank with little RP experience, but based on the fact that he has a carbine, I assume he is a high ranking deputy. I really doubt he will face any punishment at all based on how I see PD/SD treated compared to criminals regarding to FCs.

Also I want to know your opinions about how it's non rp for a single cruiser to have the storage capacity for 5 wooden barriers. Surely the boot cannot fit that many. I know you're going to make the argument about how its possible for a criminal to store an AK or something in a bike, which is fair enough, but I'm just genuinely curious what your opinions are on this.

Eager to hear your response

So the short and sweet of it is, I think what was seen in the video is totally fine, taking into account current rules and IC protocols. 

The blue blockades as Alex mentioned in a previous post are now (since a while now) used instead of the orange barriers. These barriers are used for two things mainly. 

1 - Block off sidewalks and other crime scenes so civilians do not cross them.

2 - Used as roadblocks. As the name implies these are used to block roads, either partially or in it's entirety.

Criminals have been known to evade these quite often. They do this in two ways, they randomize their direction of travel quite often, making it a lot harder to predict their path and they avoid areas that vehicles can be ''funnelled'' into making roadblocks likely successful. One such example of this is DOC bridge, the one in your video.

I can speak from personal experience, when we know a vehicle is coming to DOC bridge and we have someone around the area we have blocked the road in the past, the goal with this isn't to make the car ram itself into the blockade at 240km/h (sadly might happen due to rendering distance for objects), I usually call out the following ''The bridge is blocked, get ready to block his back with your vehicles when he stops'', the goal here is to get the vehicle to stop and either force the suspect to make a U-Turn and/or surrender. At this point the suspect has a decision to make, they can stop (or try to stop) or they can choose to ram through the barrier, higher speeds will stall the vehicle most likely, although lower speeds will allow you to break the barrier with little to no damage.

All of the above is how things work right now, there is no rules against it, several senior members of staff know PD/SD use these blockades and what seems to be the general agreement is that as long as we use the blue destructible ones then it is ok.

However, I doubt you wrote your reply wanting to hear what is and isn't allowed right now, but instead how I can defend or justify it. 

I do agree with you that these barriers probably wouldn't stop an average sized vehicle going through it at 240km/h the way it does in GTA, but I would point out that at that speed, a collision with any object no matter how week it is, is going to have severe consequences on the vehicle, either engine damage or perhaps even a stall. This is the process known as Kinetic Energy. If you placed a massive car sized sponge on a highway and collided with it at 240km/h your car wouldn't just go through it without a scratch or push it away, you would most likely wreck your vehicle. I think the same applies here, the barriers should technically break as it does most times and it probably should allow your car to continue, but the damage should be quite severe at those speeds since you are essentially ramming into either one or several wooden planks.

Having said this, the solution then becomes complicated in my eyes. We can script and program ways to allow vehicles to go through these easily but then add a significant amount of damage depending on the speed the vehicle goes through it or we can continue using the same system now and take the slight L on realism for the sake of gameplay and saving devs the pain in the ass.

It is my opinion that the usage of blockades right now isn't NRP or PG, criminals have ways to avoid these and honestly, more often than not they do avoid them. The reason you might see an increase in their usage is because PD/SD has to come up with new ways to counter the so called ''240 cars'' which present a challenge for every vehicle we own, including HSIU and XRAY. This isn't shooting on sight with megaphone demands or PITing, it's calculated and planned team effort to predict where you are going to end up and attempt to use resources to stop you, which I believe is a sign of good RP. I do not believe that because these blockades don't act 100% like they would IRL is enough of a justification to call it PG/NRP, given that these barriers are a substitute for bigger and more bulky ones that we used to have and the game engine  is somewhat limited.


To address some of the other questions:

- These barriers, just like other items in the game, probably shouldn't all fit in the vehicle, but to look at this would mean a revision of every other item used, including the example you gave. If a dev wishes to take a further look into this as part of an effort to increase realism in terms of what objects can go where, etc.. I am for it.

- Double Layer of barriers given the way they work should probably be avoided, but this is my opinion. As far as I'm concerned there isn't any rule against it. I have personally done it, although I will most likely avoid it from now on. The reason I did before was because there have been several instances where vehicles warp through my barriers as they don't load in time given the speed of the vehicle and the time it takes to stream objects, so double stacking them was a way to minimize that, not sure if that's why the Deputy did it, but that's why I do it. I urge you to report any instance that you find NRP/PG, even if it leads to nothing it might give you a satisfactory answer from a staff member, which I am not. 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Cyrus Raven

[retronub]

3 hours ago, Cyrus Raven said:

So the short and sweet of it is, I think what was seen in the video is totally fine, taking into account current rules and IC protocols. 

The blue blockades as Alex mentioned in a previous post are now (since a while now) used instead of the orange barriers. These barriers are used for two things mainly. 

1 - Block off sidewalks and other crime scenes so civilians do not cross them.

2 - Used as roadblocks. As the name implies these are used to block roads, either partially or in it's entirety.

Criminals have been known to evade these quite often. They do this in two ways, they randomize their direction of travel quite often, making it a lot harder to predict their path and they avoid areas that vehicles can be ''funnelled'' into making roadblocks likely successful. One such example of this is DOC bridge, the one in your video.

I can speak from personal experience, when we know a vehicle is coming to DOC bridge and we have someone around the area we have blocked the road in the past, the goal with this isn't to make the car ram itself into the blockade at 240km/h (sadly might happen due to rendering distance for objects), I usually call out the following ''The bridge is blocked, get ready to block his back with your vehicles when he stops'', the goal here is to get the vehicle to stop and either force the suspect to make a U-Turn and/or surrender. At this point the suspect has a decision to make, they can stop (or try to stop) or they can choose to ram through the barrier, higher speeds will stall the vehicle most likely, although lower speeds will allow you to break the barrier with little to no damage.

All of the above is how things work right now, there is no rules against it, several senior members of staff know PD/SD use these blockades and what seems to be the general agreement is that as long as we use the blue destructible ones then it is ok.

However, I doubt you wrote your reply wanting to hear what is and isn't allowed right now, but instead how I can defend or justify it. 

I do agree with you that these barriers probably wouldn't stop an average sized vehicle going through it at 240km/h the way it does in GTA, but I would point out that at that speed, a collision with any object no matter how week it is, is going to have severe consequences on the vehicle, either engine damage or perhaps even a stall. This is the process known as Kinetic Energy. If you placed a massive car sized sponge on a highway and collided with it at 240km/h your car wouldn't just go through it without a scratch or push it away, you would most likely wreck your vehicle. I think the same applies here, the barriers should technically break as it does most times and it probably should allow your car to continue, but the damage should be quite severe at those speeds since you are essentially ramming into either one or several wooden planks.

Having said this, the solution then becomes complicated in my eyes. We can script and program ways to allow vehicles to go through these easily but then add a significant amount of damage depending on the speed the vehicle goes through it or we can continue using the same system now and take the slight L on realism for the sake of gameplay and saving devs the pain in the ass.

It is my opinion that the usage of blockades right now isn't NRP or PG, criminals have ways to avoid these and honestly, more often than not they do avoid them. The reason you might see an increase in their usage is because PD/SD has to come up with new ways to counter the so called ''240 cars'' which present a challenge for every vehicle we own, including HSIU and XRAY. This isn't shooting on sight with megaphone demands or PITing, it's calculated and planned team effort to predict where you are going to end up and attempt to use resources to stop you, which I believe is a sign of good RP. I do not believe that because these blockades don't act 100% like they would IRL is enough of a justification to call it PG/NRP, given that these barriers are a substitute for bigger and more bulky ones that we used to have and the game engine  is somewhat limited.


To address some of the other questions:

- These barriers, just like other items in the game, probably shouldn't all fit in the vehicle, but to look at this would mean a revision of every other item used, including the example you gave. If a dev wishes to take a further look into this as part of an effort to increase realism in terms of what objects can go where, etc.. I am for it.

- Double Layer of barriers given the way they work should probably be avoided, but this is my opinion. As far as I'm concerned there isn't any rule against it. I have personally done it, although I will most likely avoid it from now on. The reason I did before was because there have been several instances where vehicles warp through my barriers as they don't load in time given the speed of the vehicle and the time it takes to stream objects, so double stacking them was a way to minimize that, not sure if that's why the Deputy did it, but that's why I do it. I urge you to report any instance that you find NRP/PG, even if it leads to nothing it might give you a satisfactory answer from a staff member, which I am not. 

 

 

Actually the person who placed them down stated that they did it in the "heat of the moment". There was no mention of how they did it to stop vehicles "warping" or anything. They are also support staff and a part of an official faction, so I think that their quality of RP should be higher than the average player. The fact that they justified using the wooden barriers with 2 layers by saying that it is just a petty excuse in my opinion.

This post was made because we as criminals find that PD/SD get punished less harshly than we do. If a criminal were to break FearRP because it was in the "heat of the moment", or shoot at someone who they thought they had DM rights on (sometimes they actually do) and give this reasoning, they are likely to still get a punishment/warning for it.

Like this report here. Arguably one of the worst bits of roleplay I've seen from PD. I am honestly shocked this didn't get a Non RP. They got a note on their account which is literally a verbal warning that shows you've been spoken to about it. The player in question (another high ranking PD member) stated that it was also done in the "heat of the moment".  

Obviously I can't predict whether whoever takes the report will be accepted or denied, but from the general trend of these type of reports, PD always seems to get away with just a slap on the wrist. Seeing this was only about a week ago, I'm sure there are numerous more examples of this. 

Would you not say that if a criminal did the exact same thing, they'd receive at minimum a warning or most likely will receive a Non RP if they decided to drive up almost vertical case of stairs in a car? After all this is what we should be discussing.

I feel like this happens because the majority of the staff team are PD/SD. I feel like punishments would be more fair if there was a senior staff member who was heavily involved in Crim RP. The highest staff rank I've seen for a solely criminal roleplayer is a moderator. I'm not saying there is bias involved in when reports are concluded, but I'm saying that if there was a high ranking staff member who did experience day to day criminal RP, they would understand a lot of these rulebreaks are similar to the ones PD make. 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by retronub

[Cyrus Raven]

I feel like we've moved past the questions asked and into more of conspiracy theory arguments. 

To clarify

2 hours ago, retronub said:

This post was made because we as criminals find that PD/SD get punished less harshly than we do. If a criminal were to break FearRP because it was in the "heat of the moment", or shoot at someone who they thought they had DM rights on (sometimes they actually do) and give this reasoning, they are likely to still get a punishment/warning for it.

Using blue barriers (as it stands right now) is not considered Non-RP or Powergaming, thus the difference in outcomes.

Furthermore:

2 hours ago, retronub said:

Like this report here. Arguably one of the worst bits of roleplay I've seen from PD. I am honestly shocked this didn't get a Non RP. They got a note on their account which is literally a verbal warning that shows you've been spoken to about it. The player in question (another high ranking PD member) stated that it was also done in the "heat of the moment".  

Obviously I can't predict whether whoever takes the report will be accepted or denied, but from the general trend of these type of reports, PD always seems to get away with just a slap on the wrist

You have to realize that the bar to be in PD/SD is already higher than most factions on the server. Now this isn't to say that members are unpunishable, but the chances that they have an extensive record or multiple warnings/punishments/bans is reduced. At the same time, this is not at all to say that criminals are more likely to have punishments/bans. My point is that warnings are usually given for situations that are not very black and white and/OR for people who have little to no punishments on record, meaning they are more likely to learn and not repeat their mistakes.

Accepting your world view would mean accepting that staff has a notable bias for PD/SD, which I don't think is the case. I just think it might look that way due to certain factors. 

2 hours ago, retronub said:

Would you not say that if a criminal did the exact same thing, they'd receive at minimum a warning or most likely will receive a Non RP if they decided to drive up almost vertical case of stairs in a car? After all this is what we should be discussing.

Depends on their record, how extensive it is, if they have been warned before, situation etc...

I feel like I gave you my opinion with my reasoning behind the barrier ordeal, whether you think it is reasonable or not is obviously up to you and it is a convo I am willing to continue, but I won't respond to any more replies that involve giving my opinion on staff related issues, especially without any credible information to support this.

[Jleoni]

On 10/14/2020 at 2:37 PM, Cyrus Raven said:

I agree. So lets get down to it, what do you think should be the bar for when an officer can open fire on a vehicle ? Or do you think this shouldn't be done at all ?

easy, PD/SD can never pull the trigger first.

[Cyrus Raven]

11 minutes ago, Jleoni said:

easy, PD/SD can never pull the trigger first.

lol

[Zion Willard]

It seems this conversation has again begun to veer away from the heart of the discussion @Copperhorse is attempting to promote. I have been a member of this community for 2-3 years at this point - similar to many of the familiar faces I have seen today reading up on this thread. In that time, I have rotated between playing both LEO and Criminal characters. Out of my 3000 hours on this server ~1000 of them were while in the LSPD faction.

Anyone who takes a step back can agree that the rule change in regards to public robberies was a positive change for the community when viewed in aggregate. Civilians in the past were beaten to the point of not wanting to leave the bank, or simply wouldn't choose to log in as a result of the incessant chain of robberies. The risk/reward system is one which a majority of us have grown to accept and appreciate. This above being said, it is extremely restrictive in cases where it involves interaction between criminal and legal official factions - but I'll leave that to be discussed on a future forum thread. 

Reading through the post, comments, and attitudes on this thread makes some of the issues at hand become apparent. We all know this is a video game at the end of the day, and it's important to bring everyone to a fun and even playing field ESPECIALLY in cases of adversarial relationships such as Crim v. PD. I agree with the creator of the thread that in order to keep us all on the same level, a risk/reward factor should be introduced to keep the level of response from LEO factions appropriate to the crimes criminals have committed. Below are a few examples:

Police engaging w/ heavies etc. from vehicles in populated areas absolutely should not happen unless they are matching the level of force the person(s) they are pursuing (crim goes bang bang at pd first). I really don't understand how this isn't enforced as a rule breach already, given demands from inside of a vehicle are considered invalid without proper roleplay to support them. Quote me on this if you want, I'll be happy to post plenty of supporting evidence.

Police deploying supers for general patrol (besides the 811) honestly should be fine in my eyes. Although it's boring driving a crown vic everywhere, they can easily break 220 without bumps so not much of an advantage.

Keep the military vehicles to the staff members in NG, its completely inappropriate to use as a policing force; especially as there is no countermeasure. There are no senior staff actively playing criminal characters, those that choose to play criminal do not have the liberty of spawning in GTAO vehicles/weapons.

p.s.

 all this taser nonsense is @LeftSharkie's fault 

[Zion Willard]

On 11/5/2020 at 7:25 PM, Cyrus Raven said:

You have to realize that the bar to be in PD/SD is already higher than most factions on the server. Now this isn't to say that members are unpunishable, but the chances that they have an extensive record or multiple warnings/punishments/bans is reduced. 

Accepting your world view would mean accepting that staff has a notable bias for PD/SD, which I don't think is the case. I just think it might look that way due to certain factors. 

 

Two things on this, your first point states it being more difficult to join PD in a prerequisite sense than criminal factions. I argue this to be an inaccurate representation. The prominent criminal factions on this server all set a much higher bar of entry than PD/SD currently does, both in terms of character experience and networking. Criminal factions turn away many for ooc reasons, due to quiz answers/admin logs/roleplay standards. I'd argue criminal factions are equal with legal factions in the sense of keeping tabs on their member's IC decisions, but LEO factions take better action in regards to OOC factors.

Staff is heavily concentrated on the legal side as I said above, primarily in the law enforcement faction. I see no reason why we wouldn't have an inherent bias towards our own experiences - as much as we may try to set it aside.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Zion Willard

[Zion Willard]

On 11/3/2020 at 2:47 AM, Xoza said:

I am not arguing one side or the other, as this is a suggestion forum, so let's get to the suggestion... what exactly are you suggesting when it comes to risk/reward?

Everyone is held to all rules equally. It may be tailored more to criminal activities and abuse prevention, because that's where the activity exists, but that doesn't mean no one is held to that standard, whether they involve themselves in these activities or not.

Let's ignore that the rule falls under. "Player Theft, Prison Breakout, and Kidnapping" and say it gets put under "NonRP". How would you reword the below, to be more in line of what you are suggesting, how would you expand upon it?

• "Robberies should be conducted in a realistic manner with reasonable in-character motive using secluded areas. Players should not conduct minor robberies in situations with high risk. Desert or forest areas are considered secluded but witnesses should still be considered."

• Police resources are to be utilized in a realistic manner. Players should not utilize lethal force during situations involving non-violent offenders in populated areas. Collateral damage and asset losses are to be considered when conducting faction duties. 

I think this is a pretty good starting point, obviously this would be a rule addition as opposed to a rewording of the current ruleset. I do not see the problem with utilizing the blue barriers. Spike strips are indeed bugged, which removes them from the equation. As @alexalex303 stated, the blue barriers require foresight, creative thinking, and RP to follow that allows PD to have a suitable response to cars which consistently go 240km/h. PIT maneuvers on the highway do in fact make sense, IRL there are many videos of police performing these at speeds in excess of 100mph. 

The above rule suggestion could clearly use some finer tuning, but I believe it gets at the heart of the problem.

 

[Copperhorse]

[TheCactus]

Metal barriers are not ok cause you get caught so nobody should use them. Spikestrips are bugged but no fucks given cause they "were op". Shooting towards the tires of a vehicle on the highway while nothing is obstructing your line of sight is unrealistic (even if in real life, people who respect traffic laws should pull over to the left and to the right, to avoid obstructing law enforcement). When you're driving 200+ on the other side of the highway however, you're magically able to dodge all the imaginary cars and you're the safest driver alive.

Playing the "realistic" card makes you look like you care about the roleplay quality of the server. The problem is you, the very person that is replying to this suggestion which became a pointless back and forth discussion, only see the "unrealistic" side when it affects you a.k.a. you lose.

Either try to be 100% unbiased when you want a positive change to happen or carry your egoist narrow-minded ass back to discord general.

Edited November 24, 2020 by TheCactus

[Cade_Winslow]

On 10/14/2020 at 9:32 AM, Bala said:

Talk to me about realism when you're not driving around on a drag bike 200km/h+ in the city wearing pyjamas with an AK on your back and a song in your heart all day.

This is the greatest comment ever, lmao.  

 

However, I agree as instances with PD feels mostly like Power Gaming.  There are a few select PD that are awesome with RP and you can tell they enjoy it.  Other than that, majority of PD I run across have a win mentality and power trip over the smallest infractions.  In some instances with gangs and crim sure I understand the win mentality but if this is an admin run faction with multiple admins within the PD it should be put at a higher standard and encouraged to promote great enjoyable RP for all players of the server. 

The intentions may be to have the highest RP standards but when you get in the weeds I believe majority of people would disagree.  There is also a stark difference in PD and SD.  I find SD much more enjoyable to RP with as they seem to truly enjoy RPing, laughing, and making sure its a good experience.  Maybe they can give some pointers...

[IAmTurtle]

29 minutes ago, Cade_Winslow said:

I agree as instances with PD feels mostly like Power Gaming

can you give examples?

[Cade_Winslow]

24 minutes ago, IAmTurtle said:

can you give examples?

Are you asking for every specific example or generalized examples?  If people are not aware of how multiple PD members act whether is it PG, MG, harassment, bullying, or abusing power then it is either they are ignoring grievances or simply not reading them.  You can scroll through the pages and find tons of examples that include suggestions accompanied with grievances.  Whether you or whoever decides whether to act or not based on suggestions is simply the readers decision.

I simply commented on a thread that I agree with and share similar concerns with.  In my personal interactions, SD will RP and give you a chance to RP my side and in the majority of my personal interactions with PD I am not able to RP my side whether it is being pulled over, questioned, ticketed, arrested, or followed innocent or guilty.  I think PD has the same issue the gangs and criminal characters have, which is a win first mentality. 

I remember my first run in with the police on the server... I shot someone who stole my car and the guy took off in the car police quickly heard shots and were there in seconds they saw me with a gun and chased the car thief down leaving me alone without an officer waiting with me.  While they chased him down I took the car I was in stashed my gun and parked it in a high populated area without the police seeing me.  When I returned to get my stolen car the police questioned where I put my gun and I denied having one.  An admin went OOC in staff outfit and found my car within seconds that held the gun.  I asked where and how he found it when he switched back in to character and he said he scanned every license plate.  This, for example, is a win first mentality where the outcome was only going to be one way.

This is one example.  Could I paragraph out more examples, sure I could as well as many others could.  Would they be argued and scrutinized to prove PD is perfect...I don't know, maybe.

If you own a business and you are getting the same complaints from multiple customers about your staff being rude or whatever the complaint may be at the business you don't just argue and say we are perfect to the customer.  I would hope you would listen to the complaints and suggestions and go back to your staff and communicate some of the complaints and suggestions that have been coming in.

I hope no one is offended by a suggestion forum or comments made as these forums are made or I would assume to be made as a platform for players as well as staff to communicate suggestions to better not only individual RP but community RP.  In the end we should all have the same goal, which is to continuously improve server RP and grow as a community.

[IAmTurtle]

1 hour ago, Cade_Winslow said:

An admin went OOC in staff outfit and found my car within seconds that held the gun.  I asked where and how he found it when he switched back in to character and he said he scanned every license plate.  This, for example, is a win first mentality where the outcome was only going to be one way.

This is alt rp and was approved by sa+. Also how do you think its not powergaming to hide a gun in a car were we cant get access to it scriptly? 

 

1 hour ago, Cade_Winslow said:

PD I am not able to RP my side whether it is being pulled over, questioned, ticketed

What side are you going to rp when I ticket you because I clocked you speeding? Second off I try to rp with people on traffic stops but almost nobody will attempt any sort of rp. Like showing id or anything like that. Its just straight /license. And get mad when I take my time to rp things out.

 

Also were in the real world does LEO loose more the 90% of the time? 

[Cade_Winslow]

24 minutes ago, IAmTurtle said:

And get mad when I take my time to rp things out.

I don't get mad at anyone nor was pointing anyone in particular out.  I enjoy when PD does RP and give opportunities as its not always a win attitude with me.  I prefer roleplay over winning but that's just me.  I also did not tag you or mention you specifically.  You may be an awesome RP'r I have no clue I only know IC names and if you are I appreciate that.  However, just because people get angry doesn't mean all of us get angry and don't appreciate RP.

Besides, I have been pulled over and ticketed for going 80 before when cruise was on and officer said I was going 90.

24 minutes ago, IAmTurtle said:

Also how do you think its not powergaming to hide a gun in a car were we cant get access to it scriptly? 

Police left me alone and gave me an opportunity to hide the gun.  PD did have access to it as it was parked with other cars in a parking lot that anyone had physical access to it.  I didn't park it in a garage so I am not sure how at all this would be PG.  I gave an example as you requested but it seems you wanted an example to poke holes and argue.  I am not interested in arguing I only commented on a post I agree with and what my opinion was due to my own personal interactions.

23 minutes ago, IAmTurtle said:

Also were in the real world does LEO loose more the 90% of the time? 

I am not sure where you got 90% of the time.  Do we have to look at it as winning or losing?  However, I would have to look at statistics of all police interactions and the outcomes based on reason to answer this.  

This is like asking how a superbike and/or super car can climb 90 degree mountains going 200 km/h, or how you can't tuck a gun under a shirt but you can irl, or how you can alias someone and have a name above their head, or how you plant wheat when the ground is frozen or how you stick 40 oil barrels inside a small crate.  It is hard to compare IRL with RP scenarios/interactions because a lot of the time they can't compare.  

Edited December 9, 2020 by Cade_Winslow
added reply

[CalvinKlein]

@IAmTurtle @Cade_Winslow yeahh the sad part is it’s so rare / hard to get “alt rp” approval as a crim even tho we’re “encouraged” to find unique and special roleplay (other than scripted features (cooking etc) / robbing ppl ) but then everything you want to do is alt rp & nearly impossible to get approval for roleplay on the spot. 

[Jleoni]

+1

Also, are there no actually enforced restrictions on PD super use? I see PD going to personal calls/errands in supers and see more PD liveried supers than normal supers in the city lately.

[CalvinKlein]

There needs to be more OOC restrictions on those actions, the same way crims / civs have certain restrictions OOCly for what used to be "IC Issue"

[Borrelli]

3 hours ago, Jleoni said:

+1

Also, are there no actually enforced restrictions on PD super use? I see PD going to personal calls/errands in supers and see more PD liveried supers than normal supers in the city lately.

Feel free to send me the footage if you believe people are abusing the super. There are fairly strict regulations regarding usage.

I've personally never seen/heard of someone going to 'personal calls/errands'. What you possibly witnessed was a training session where someone realised they needed food/water so they stopped to grab it? Would you expect them to head back to a precinct, park the super, get another cruiser, get their food, return to the precint, return the cruiser and then get the super back out again?

[Jleoni]

1 minute ago, Borrelli said:

Feel free to send me the footage if you believe people are abusing the super. There are fairly strict regulations regarding usage.

I've personally never seen/heard of someone going to 'personal calls/errands'. What you possibly witnessed was a training session where someone realised they needed food/water so they stopped to grab it? Would you expect them to head back to a precinct, park the super, get another cruiser, get their food, return to the precint, return the cruiser and then get the super back out again?

In the past 24 hours (OOC time)

Cop in super requesting gps blips for their business
Cop in super going to a personal call to show a house they were selling

Don't have recordings/don't record but there were others who can confirm these specific incidents and perhaps have recordings. This is a very regular occurrence it seems, now more than what I've ever before.


Not sure if this is allowed or not, but regardless it definitely is immersion breaking to see so many PD liveried supers out and about regularly.